Mr. Palmer. Not knowingly. He was hesitant in his payment of welfare to AGVA for his personnel. He was not the only one. This is a common shortcoming of most club owners.
His affiliation with the Vegas Club, was an affiliation he should not have been affiliated with, since the club was theoretically in his sister’s name, and I had been given to believe that his operation here was separate. It could be a point of contention with AGVA.
Mr. Griffin. Why shouldn’t he have been associated with the Vegas Club, under your rules?
Mr. Palmer. Well, our rules are that an owner who cannot subscribe but only partially to our union, if his business is all entertainment business, then he must have been either entirely AGVA, or not at all. I am quite sure this was why the Vegas was presented as being in his sister’s name.
Mr. Griffin. From your experience with Jack, were you able to form any impression of the extent of employee turnover that he had?
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Mr. Griffin. How did his turnover compare to that of other employers in the business?
Mr. Palmer. Well, it was great, the rate of turnover, until he would eventually hire an entertainer who was either capable of standing the pace that he set in his club, or until he hired someone who wanted to settle down in Dallas and was willing to work for a little less and perhaps a little more frequently per night.
Another of Jack’s possible infringements on AGVA rules and regulations, and it was never clarified in AGVA, was his continuous show policy. This made his finding a new master of ceremonies, whenever it was necessary, virtually impossible, because there are few emcees who can go on and on all evening.
Mr. Griffin. Did AGVA have a policy against continuous shows?